Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "How to run the test suite on macOS?"
2014 Mar 22
2
[LLVMdev] compiler-rt CMake build ignores CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS
Hello,
It looks like compiler-rt CMake scripts don't take CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS
into account. This is because clang_compile and clang_link_shared
functions call the newly-built compiler directly, and they don't add
those flags.
Using CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS is necessary on systems where the C++11-enabled
libstdc++ is installed not in the default location. For example, the
CentOS buildbot uses:
2018 Sep 21
2
msan test failures
I'm seeing some test failures for unit tests for msan (check-msan)
happening in googletest, which I find weird. I'm on Arch Linux, with
r342711. Below is one type of error that I see. The full log is 416MB (!)
big. My guess is that those errors are related, but if anyone needs the
full log, I'll provide it. Here is a reduced log from the end:
2019 Jun 13
4
Clang8 on MacOS 10.14
[Please cc me, as I am not on this list.]
When installing the clang8 MacOS binary by
wget <clang-binaries-tarball-url>
tar -xf clang*
cd clang*
sudo mkdir /usr/local/clang8
sudo cp -R * /usr/local/clang8
the compiler works on MacOS 10.13, but not on MacOS 10.14, with an error:
/usr/local/clang/bin/../include/c++/v1/stdio.h:108:15: fatal error: 'stdio.h' file not found
2014 Jun 30
3
[LLVMdev] LLD dynamic compilation
On 30 June 2014 16:16, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> I think you are hitting a bug, the Observer pattern was added a few weeks
> back, and may be there is some sort of uninitialized variable ?
This is my back-trace at "-O2 -g" (since -O1 pass):
operator() (file=<optimized out>, __closure=0x7fffffffde40) at
2011 Dec 13
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] utils/unittest: Consistency of gtest and gtest_main libs.
$(llvm-config --libs | tr " " "\n" | grep gtest) returns:
-lgtest_main
-lgtest
instead of non-valid:
-lLLVMgtest_main
-lLLVMgtest
It also fixes:
$(ld): cannot find -lLLVMgtest
$(ld): cannot find -lLLVMgtest_main
---
unittests/Makefile.unittest | 2 +-
utils/llvm-build/llvmbuild/componentinfo.py | 4 ++--
utils/llvm-build/llvmbuild/main.py |
2016 Nov 02
4
Llvm build is broken (at least on FreeBSD)
Current revision 285840 fails to build on FreeBSD.
I used the command:
cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" ../llvm -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/opt/llvm/current && gmake
(I am aware of FreeBSD llvm/clang ports, but the source build should
always succeed as well.)
Yuri
---errors---
Scanning dependencies of target gtest
[ 91%] Building CXX object
2013 May 12
2
[LLVMdev] ASan unit test/libcxx build break
Is no one else seeing this? (I've been seeing it for a few days)
In file included from
/usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/gtest-all.cc:39:
In file included from
/usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest.h:57:
In file included from
2014 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] Warnings on Unittests
Hi folks,
I'm using gcc 4.8.1 and I'm getting these warnings on every googletest file:
src/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest-typed-test.h:239:47:
warning: anonymous variadic macros were introduced in C99
[-Wvariadic-macros]
# define REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_CASE_P(CaseName, ...) \
^
It seems a gtest infrastructure file, so maybe
2013 May 13
0
[LLVMdev] ASan unit test/libcxx build break
+eugenis
I see this while running 'check-msan'.
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:10 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is no one else seeing this? (I've been seeing it for a few days)
>
> In file included from
>
> /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/gtest-all.cc:39:
> In file included from
>
>
2008 Dec 23
6
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Adding unit tests to LLVM
(Forwarding this to llvm-dev)
This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit test
for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is mainly
a trial balloon and proof of concept.
Some notes about the patch:
1) For the testing framework, I went with Google Test, since it's the one I
have the most experience with. I fully expect an extended
2014 Jun 30
2
[LLVMdev] LLD dynamic compilation
Folks,
I'm having a look at LLD and I need some guidance...
I know it's not production ready for x86 and ARM (the idea is to make
it so). My steps:
I've added it to tools/lld and ran CMake again (on x86_64) on a
standard release build (static linking). It works, builds but I see
one unit test error:
Note: Google Test filter = InputGraphTest.Observer
[==========] Running 1 test from
2008 Dec 27
3
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Adding unit tests to LLVM
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Talin <viri... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > (Forwarding this to llvm-dev)
> >
> > This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit
> test
> > for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is
> mainly
> > a
2008 Dec 27
0
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Adding unit tests to LLVM
On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Talin <viri... at gmail.com> wrote:
> (Forwarding this to llvm-dev)
>
> This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit test
> for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is mainly
> a trial balloon and proof of concept.
I think this is a great idea! As Keir already noted, I would also
agree with LLVM
2008 Dec 31
3
[LLVMdev] Unit test patch, updated
On Dec 30, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Talin wrote:
> OK changes made and new patch attached.
Nice
+++ utils/unittest/Makefile (revision 0)
...
+# This has to come after Makefile.common, since it doesn't allow us to
+# override the VPATH value unless we set PROJECT_NAME, which we don't
want
+# to do.
+VPATH = $(LLVM_SRC_ROOT)/utils/unittest/googletest/src/
Why play with VPATH here? What
2009 Aug 28
3
[LLVMdev] Regular Expression lib support
Nice!
This looks good to me but probably Chris or someone else should sign off on it.
There were two minor warnings on Darwin:
--
In file included from /Volumes/Data/Users/ddunbar/llvm/lib/Support/regexec.c:81:
/Volumes/Data/Users/ddunbar/llvm/lib/Support/regengine.inc: In
function 'sbackref':
/Volumes/Data/Users/ddunbar/llvm/lib/Support/regengine.inc:665:
warning: control reaches end of
2013 Dec 29
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Prevent CMake from installing libgtest*.
This library is intended to be used locally for tests and not installed
as a global system library. And even if it were, the install doesn't
belong to LLVM but to a dedicated gtest package.
---
utils/unittest/CMakeLists.txt | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/utils/unittest/CMakeLists.txt b/utils/unittest/CMakeLists.txt
index fd1a048..c11c110 100644
---
2018 Sep 13
2
New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9
Hello,
GCC 9.0 introduces a new warning checkers and some of them found possible
issues in LLVM.
In file included from
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LazyCallGraph.h:38,
from
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/Analysis/LazyCallGraphTest.cpp:10:
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h: In
instantiation of
2018 Mar 15
2
[RFC] Updating googletest to non-release tagged version
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:09 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> +Chandler who might have some thoughts on this.
>
> Could you provide an example here of the motivation for the feature you're
> missing? Might help motivate the discussion (and/or we'll end up nitpicking
> how it could be done differently without that feature... - which
2009 Aug 27
0
[LLVMdev] Regular Expression lib support
On 2009-08-27 09:06, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
> 2009/8/25 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>:
>
>> On 2009-08-25 21:18, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
>>
>>> Woot! Thanks a bunch Edwin!
>>>
>>> Some comments on the patch:
>>> --
>>> I'm not sure if it makes sense to import the man pages, if we only
>>> expose Regex.h.
2008 Dec 28
5
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Adding unit tests to LLVM
2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com>
> Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or
> a different test suite?
> I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with that.
> So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it just that someone
> makes a patch for it?
>
I looked more into Boost.Test to see what's in